Judgment :- Dharmarao Elipe, J. This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 012. 2003 made in W.P.No.34952 of 2003. 2. The petitioner, who joined in the second respondent Management in the year 1972, was working in the capacity of Secretary from 24. 1988 and he was kept under suspension from 26. 1993 to 35. 1994 and from 06. 1994 to 30.11.1994. The petitions filed by him before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, for nonpayment of subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension were allowed directing the Management to pay a sum of Rs.28,258.25 and Rs.18,666/- respectively. Subsequent to the suspension, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 3. 1995 and after conducting enquiry, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 28.02.1996. In the appeal filed by him under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the order of dismissal was set aside as against which, the Management filed W.P.No.11271 of 2003 and the same is pending. The I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the Claim Petition, being C.P.No.5 of 2001, filed by the petitioner under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, I.D. Act], allowed the same vide order dated 211. 2002 directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.46,665/-, which was determined as the amount payable to him and the said order has become final. Pursuant to the petition filed by him under Section 33 (C) (1) of the I.D. Act towards non-computation of the amount, the Government issued G.O. (D) No.608 dated 16. 2003, Labour and Employment (A2) Department and issued revenue recovery certificate authorising the first respondent to collect the above said amount of Rs.46,665/- due as arrears of land revenue, from the second respondent Management. Since there was no action on the part of the first respondent towards recovery of the amount and since no action for the representation dated 111. 2003 made by the petitioner, he has come forward with the writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to recover Rs.46,665/-as arrears of land revenue from the second respondent in accordance with G.O. (D) No.608 dated 16. 2003 Labour and Employment (A2) Department and to pay the same to him. 3. 2003 made by the petitioner, he has come forward with the writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to recover Rs.46,665/-as arrears of land revenue from the second respondent in accordance with G.O. (D) No.608 dated 16. 2003 Labour and Employment (A2) Department and to pay the same to him. 3. The learned Judge, after going into the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the writ petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension as a matter of fundamental right. The learned Judge further directed the first respondent to take steps to recover the money due under the order dated 211. 2002 in C.P.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai based on G.O.(D).No.608 dated 16. 2003, if he is not otherwise legally disable, from the second respondent and to pay the same to the writ petitioner. Aggrieved at the same, the present writ appeal is filed by the Management. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the records. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Management contended that the writ petitioner was removed from service by order dated 28.02.1996 only after conducting enquiry and that during the period of suspension, he worked with some other organisation and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the subsistence allowance to him as ordered by the Labour Court in C.P.No.5 of 2001. In support of his contention, the learned counsel produced a copy of the order dated 33. 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in Ku.Pa.Voo.Sa.108 of 1998 wherein it is stated that when an inspection was conducted in Vetrivel Murugan Theatre, second respondent therein, on 09. 1998 for non-payment of minimum wages to its employees, wherein the statement of the writ petitioner was recorded. He further submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour would establish that the writ petitioner has worked and was paid salaries during the period of suspension and, therefore, he is not entitled to receive subsistence allowance. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent / writ petitioner submitted that it is indicated in the statement filed by the appellant that the amount payable for five months was from the date of conduct of inspection, i.e., on 09. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent / writ petitioner submitted that it is indicated in the statement filed by the appellant that the amount payable for five months was from the date of conduct of inspection, i.e., on 09. 1998, which is after the termination of the services of the petitioner by the appellant. 7. It is seen that since the writ petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension followed by the order of termination, he approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition directing the Management to pay the amount determined based on which a G.O. was also issued in G.O. (D) No.608 dated 16. 2003. Since the same was not implemented, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned Judge also rightly allowed the writ petition. Further, it is clear from the statement filed by the appellant that the writ petitioner had worked in some other organisation, viz., Vetrivel Murugan Theatre only after his termination by the appellant / Management and, therefore, it is not a ground to deny the subsistence allowance to which he is entitled. The contention raised by the appellant Management that since the writ petitioner had worked in some other organisation, he is not entitled for subsistence allowance cannot be accepted and it is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 8. In the decision reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 [Capt. M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another], the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 30 as follows: "If, therefore, even that amount is not paid, then the very object of paying the reduced salary to the employee during the period of suspension would be frustrated. The act of non-payment of subsistence allowance can be likened to slow-poisoning as the employee, if not permitted to sustain himself on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, would gradually starve himself to death." 9. In the light of the above, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 012. 2003 made in W.P.No.34952 of 2003. In the light of the above, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 012. 2003 made in W.P.No.34952 of 2003. Since the appellant Management made a statement that the writ petitioner worked in some other organisation because of which he was denied payment of subsistence allowance all these days, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the writ petitioner as cost. The appellant is further directed to arrange for the above payment to the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as ordered by the Government in G.O.(D) No.608 Labour and Employment (A2) Department dated 16. 2003.